At 9:16 PM -0400 10/28/2000, John Kelsey wrote:
I'll comment more on this from another note of yours. I
think you're probably right, but that we need to figure out
how to really nail that argument down, which means
specifying exactly what's meant by ``close to an inverse,''
or whatever.
I have
At 4:16 PM +1100 10/27/2000, Damien Miller wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
simple way to combine the AES finalists and take advantage of all the
testing that each has already undergone. And, IMHO, it is an
interesting theoretical question as well. Even if the answer is
Title: RE: Paranoid Encryption Standard (was Re: Rijndael Hitachi)
Cool. I have to think about this some more and see if I can provide you with a proof either way, but for now you're right. I am operating entirely on conventional wisdom. That is not sound. My assumption here (offered
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
At 02:26 PM 10/20/00 -0400, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
At 8:13 PM -0400 10/11/2000, John Kelsey wrote:
...
I read the Massey and Maurer paper (One can find it at
http://www.isi.ee.ethz.ch/publications/isipap/umaure-mass-inspec-1993
1.pdf ) and I have a couple
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
I read the Massey and Maurer paper (One can find it at
http://www.isi.ee.ethz.ch/publications/isipap/umaure-mass-inspec-1993-
1.pdf ) and I have a couple of comments on it.
This is just silly. There's nothing wrong with Rijndael.
-Bram Cohen
